Appropriation within the Theft Act 1968: Part II
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838404800406 |
| Published date | 01 November 1984 |
| Date | 01 November 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
APPROPRIATION
WITHIN
THE
THEFT
ACT
1968:
PART
11*
L. M. Clements
Is appropriation
some
action inconsistent with the owner's
rights. etc?
The second question posed by this article is whether appropriation
issome action inconsistent with the owner's rights, something which
is hostile to his interests or antagonistic of his rights. This question
has partly been answered in the foregoing discussion of consent and
appropriation. But it deserves separate consideration.
Five cases decided before R. v. Morris supported the proposition
that appropriation has an inbuilt connotation that it is some action
inconsistent with the owner's rights. These five includedR.
v.Skipp
,
R. v. Hircock ,R. v. Meech, Eddy v. Niman and finally Dip Kaur v.
Chief
Constable
of
Hampshire,"
It
has already been argued that all
but R. v. Meech and Eddy v. Niman of the former four are wrongly
decided. R. v. Meech is explicable on the basis that in simply taking
the money from the account even with dishonest intent, the
defendant had not "assumed
the
rights of an
owner",
as he was
doing
that
which he was expressly authorised
and
indeed told to do
by the
owner
of the money, and had not at that stage obtained
possession by any trick or false pretence made to the owner; and
consent had been obtained before Meech became dishonest.
In Dip Kaur, the accused (D.) picked up obscurely labelled shoes
and carried them to the checkout girl.
One
shoe had attached to it a
£4·99 label
and
the
other
a
£6·99
label.
The
accused dishonestly
hoped
that
the checkout assistant would charge the lower price,
which she did.
The
defendant was not guilty of theft, however,
because it was assumed
that
until the checkout was reached there
had been no appropriation;
and
when she walked
out
of the shop
she was already the
owner
of the shoes under avoidable contract of
sale.
The
Court
left open
the
question whether walking away from
·Part
I
appeared
at 48
J.CL.
293.
21. (1981) I W.L.R. 57S.
389
To continue reading
Request your trial